Site Meter

Our own Grandmother Superior appeared on Meet the Press this weekend, and was asked to respond to the Saddleback Forum question, "At what point does a baby get human rights?" You'll recall that Barack Obama punted, explaining that making such a determination was "above [his] pay grade."

Apparently such a determination was also above Grandmother Superior's pay grade (I'm actually thinking Peter Principle) considering the rambling, nonsensical answer she managed to produce, including this howler -- "The doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition." The doctors of the church?? WTF??? Yet her response can be accurately condensed to three words: "We don't know." That's Grandmother Superior speaking for herself primarily, and because of her political imminence, presumably the Roman Catholic Church as well.

First off, let me be clear about this. I think Pelosi was being honest. In her post modern, progressive worldview, we don't know. We can't know, because we are incapable of inerrantly judging any situation to be "good" or "evil." Such is the heart of contemporary post-modern philosophy -- there can never be certainty about anything, save for the fact that nothing is ever certain. But such uncertainty cannot be projected upon the Roman Catholic church, which remains a most profoundly un-post modern institution.

In response to Madame Speaker's hazy recollection of Roman Catholic church history, "Captain Ed" Morrisey posted a nice compendium of ancient Church teachings on abortion, which succinctly illustrates that the early church fathers were in unity with regard to the sinfulness of abortion. Even though Protestants have grown rather squishy on the issue, nothing has changed during the last 2000 years with respect to Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox doctrine. Nothing.

Yet Pelosi can't -- or won't -- recognize this because, as a progressive, her primary agenda is saving the world (a job that the rest of us usually trust God to accomplish). And for over 100 years, the doctrines of progressivism have taught that the unfettered
practice of abortion will be able to accomplish what the doctrines of
the Church seemingly have not -- the elimination poverty and the restoration of humanity to a proverbial "Garden of Eden" state of health and prosperity. Thus to progressives the practice of abortion has become an ultimate expression of morality not to be hampered by such trivialities as "human rights" for a fetus, and in challenging this viewpoint, the Church is simply ignorant.

I believe that this episode perfectly illustrates the necessity of the concept of separation of church and state. We usually study this issue from the viewpoint of organized religion attempting to coerce government, but Pelosi's remarks should remind us that dimwitted, morally wobbly politicians can also pose a threat to the free expression of orthodox religious thought if they are given too much power. Ask a Canadian Catholic if you don't believe me.

If Nancy Pelosi believes that moral absolutes do not exist, or that she is better equipped to define morality than the Church, that's fine, and she should have the freedom to publicly joust with her mythical "doctors of the church" as often and as vigorously as she wishes. But those of us who simply think she is a fool should always have the right to challenge her foolishness without fear of recrimination. In a free society, that's the way it should be.

One of the dominant themes of the modern progressive movement, particularly Christian progressivism, is "disparate parties putting aside their differences and working toward common goals." In many respects, this is a noble undertaking. And as an alternative to the confrontational and schismatic struggles that have plagued Protestant Christianity for centuries, it is certainly a very appealing option.

A little over a century ago, the leaders of both the nascent progressive movement and the mainline Protestant churches situated in urban parishes began to recognize the terrible plight of the poor and disadvantaged living in the large cities of the United States. These people, largely immigrants from Europe, were exploited and tossed aside by greedy industrialists and then cast down as hopelessly ignorant and corrupted by the wealthy Anglo upper classes. Both social progressives, transformed by the writings of Marx and the science of Darwin, and mainline Protestants, driven by the tenants of the Christian Gospel, made the abatement of urban poverty their ultimate goal. To this end, mainline Protestant Christian denominations and secular leftists/progressives have been working in tandem on many social justice issues (community organizing, civil rights, health care rights, living wage, etc.) for over one hundred years.

Yet within this close relationship lies a problem that has continually plagued progressive Christians -- how does the Church prevent the Gospel from being polluted by the anti-Christian ideologies of secular progressives? One could earnestly ask the same question regarding the dangerous relationships between the "Religious Right," big business, and the military, but in this essay I want to specifically focus on how the pro-abortion teachings of the secular progressive movement have affected contemporary progressive Christianity.

The biggest lightening rod in the current abortion controversy is Sen. Barack Obama, a self-professed Christian who has also been one of the most outspoken and dogged foes of any legislation that could negatively affect abortion rights. His stubborn refusal to support the Illinois "born alive" legislation (which would have mandated that hospitals provide medical services for infants who survived abortion procedures) led to Alan Keyes' now infamous quote -- "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama."

Of course the Christian support for abortion does not end with Barack Obama. One of the nation's most active abortion rights advocacy groups is the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an interfaith association of clergy and lay leaders who support abortion rights and sponsor birth control and sex education programs, primarily for inner-city for teenagers.

And I have had many sincere conversations with dedicated Christians, particularly those who work closely with the poor, where the topic of abortion has been introduced as a "necessary evil," an option that should be made available without stigma to women who know that they cannot provide a safe home for a child, and who simply don't "have it together enough" to endure a full term pregnancy and adoption procedure.

It's a compelling argument, to be sure, but is it consistent with the ethics exemplified by the life of Jesus Christ? Or is it an argument that is actually rooted in the selfish desires of man?

Here in Oklahoma, governor Brad Henry (D) vetoed a bill that was overwhelmingly passed by the House and Senate (both Democrat controlled, by the way) that would have ended all state funding for any part of the abortion process:

The Oklahoma State Medical Association and the Oklahoma Osteopathic Association urged a veto.

Some doctors said they were worried they
would be placed in jeopardy of breaking the law when they gave patients
information about troubled pregnancies.

Under current law, taxpayer funds generally
cannot be used for abortions, but exceptions are made to save a
mother’s life and in cases of incest and rape. Sen. James Williamson’s
bill would have removed the exception for incest and rape.

“First and foremost, the measure is flawed
in that it does not include exemptions for cases of incest and rape,”
Henry said. “That means many victims of rape or incest would have no
option but to carry a fetus to term, no matter how horrific and violent
the circumstances.

We live in a secular society, so we would be in error if we completely omitted the option to terminate a pregnancy that was conceived through violent circumstances. But at the same time, encouraging abortion in such a circumstance, or simply assuming that abortion is the only course of action, is also wrong.

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Louisiana Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco
signed into law a ban on most abortions that would be triggered if the
U.S. Supreme Court overturns its 1973 ruling legalizing the procedure,
a spokesman said on Saturday.

The ban would apply to all
abortions, even in cases of rape or incest, except when the mother's
life is threatened. It is similar to a South Dakota law that has become
a battleground in the abortion debate.

The South Dakota law was
enacted partly to invite a court challenge in the hope a more
conservative Supreme Court would overturn its Roe v. Wade decision that
established a woman's right to abortion.

The Louisiana ban would
take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Medicaid, which provides
health benefits for the poor and disabled, requires funding for
abortions in cases of rape or incest. Louisiana would allow those
exceptions so long as it was required for Medicaid funding. (emphasis added)

Seven states supposedly have similar abortion "trigger" laws (though a list of those seven states has proven to be impossible to find). This is obviously another reason why the pro-abortion crowd in South Dakota is trying to avoid a lawsuit as they challenge the South Dakota abortion ban law.

Voters will have the final say on South Dakota's tough new law that bans almost all abortions.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson said Monday that the law's opponents
had collected enough signatures to put a question on the Nov. 7 ballot
asking voters if the law should go into effect as planned or be dumped.

The state's abortion law, among the strictest in the nation, bans
the procedure in all cases except when necessary to save a woman's
life, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Supporters hoped it would prompt a court challenge that would give
the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to overturn its 1973 Roe. v. Wade
decision that legalized abortion.

Instead of challenging it in court, opponents, who argue the law is
too extreme, gathered enough petition signatures to put the question
directly to voters.

Clever. Since there is no lawsuit, the law won't go in front of the Supreme Court. I wonder what the pro-abortion crowd would have done had the Roberts and Alito nominations not occurred? If you are pro-life, this is an important lesson in why you should vote for social conservatives, even if you don't agree with everything they do.

This will be an interesting battle. But I'll say right now that the efforts of the pro-abortion crowd could backfire if they drown South Dakota with out-of-state propaganda.

South Dakota governor Mike Rounds signed a law into effect today that would outlaw the practice of abortion on demand in his state, with exceptions for rape, incest, and medical emergencies. the governor recognized that the law conflicts with Roe v. Wade and said that South Dakota's existing abortion laws would stay in effect until the legal issues surrounding this law were settled.

The pro-abortion minions have yet to decide whether they will challenge the law through the appellate process, or with a state-wide referendum this November.

After signing the law, the governor said, "In the
history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well
people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society.
The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong
because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless
persons in our society. I agree with them."

Amen.

Since the turn of the 20th century, certain secularist intellectuals and progressives have argued that the impoverished, the destitute, the handicapped, and the terminally ill are not worthy of being saved. New proponents of these ideas continue to come forward every few decades.

In Holland, the government has finally given in and has announced that they will be forming a committee to oversee and regulate the euthanization of gravely ill infants. The euthanization of adults has been practiced under government supervision in Holland for some time now. So has the euthanization of infants; the government has simply turned a blind eye because it has been relatively rare and because fearful doctors have heavily regulated the practice themselves.

Recently our church has been involved with the family of a very precious little boy named Fletcher Burns. He is only a little over a year old and yet he has endured open heart surgery, pneumonia, a trach tube for breathing, a peg tube for feeding, a direct arterial line for medication, and has been more or less on ventilation for the duration of his earthly life. Fletcher's family has posted a website that tells his story and includes pictures and periodic updates by the family. If you pray regularly, please remember little Fletcher and his longsuffering family.

There is no doubt in my mind that in a nation like Holland, Fletcher's life would have been snuffed out by doctors long ago, either at the request of the parents or at the urging of doctors who are more concerned about the administrative and financial burdens that gravely ill patients impose upon the medical system.

And finally in Ohio, a battle has been going on for some time over the right of parents to sue doctors who fail to find birth defects before a child is born. The legislature is working on a bill to outlaw such lawsuits, while the state supreme court ruled 4-3 last week that such lawsuits are permissible, but that parents can only collect damages proportional to the cost of childbirth and neonatal care.

It would seem to me that a more fundamental question that courts should be considering in these cases is whether or not the "parents" of such a child -- who have freely expressed their prior desire to terminate its life and who are undoubtedly seething with bitterness over the prospect of being saddled with the child as a burden for the rest of its life -- should be allowed to remain the legal guardians of such a child. It seems doubtful to me that such parents could be trusted to make medical decisions that would be in the child's best interest.

The Mississippi House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would outlaw abortion on demand in their state. Like a similar bill recently passed in South Dakota, the Mississippi bill includes provisions for abortions to still be performed in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergencies.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has indicated that he will sign the bill if it is also passed by the State Senate, which has yet to vote on the measure.

Ain't democracy grand? And as a bonus, reporters everywhere will now be forced to learn how to spell "Mississippi."

Today the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 (Samuel Alito did not rule on the case) that abortion clinics could not use RICO and other federal anti-racketeering statutes as a basis for banning anti-abortion demonstrations

If you are confused about how laws designed to stop the Mafia were twisted around and used against abortion clinic protesters, I'll try to briefly explain the situation.

Organized crime uses many tactics in order to control or dominate local businesses. These tactics often include coercive actions designed to drive customers away from certain businesses, thereby forcing those businesses either to close down or to turn their operations over to the Mafia. In legal parlance, such disruptive activities are part of a set of criminal activities known as racketeering.

Abortion clinics petitioned the courts, claiming that abortion protesters were driving away customers and hurting business! The attorneys for the abortion clinics argued along these lines during almost twenty years of lawsuits and appeals.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the RICO law could not be convoluted in such a fashion. This is the second bit of good news for the Pro-Life movement in a week.